Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Sovereignty

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion for a rename should take place on the article talk page, this closure shouldn't be inferred as supporting or opposing such. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Sovereignty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "flash in the pan" protest. Very little news coverage, questionable historical significance or proven effect on society, and a significant proportion of online search results by Google point to Marxist-Leninist websites and blogs with limited notability or reliability. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in The Age, a newspaper of record, includes this article. If a country's prime minister takes the time to oppose something (such as this camp), that is an argument in favout of notability. This demonstrates that the camp and its effects are still being discussed in 2014. See here for further coverage in The Age. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In light of the additional citations from Eastmain, I withdraw my earlier support for delete. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Eastmain's analysis. I am One of Many (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Wikinews entry of this camp calls it as StolenWealth Games. Why not rename the article to that title? - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.